Tag Archives: Interpreting Classical Economics

1.0 Introduction I recently stumbled across McKiernan (2017), an Austrian response to Sraffa's book. This is a weird working paper. He works through Sraffa, with apparently no knowledge of all the textbooks explaining the book. McKiernan correctly notes that Sraffa provides little context about his points. And the mathematics is not always explicit. Naturally, McKiernan makes mistakes. If he ever revisits this, I think he would want to break it up into several papers. (Fabra (1991) is the...

"It is the whole process of production that must be called 'human labour', and thus causes all products and all values. Marx and Ricardo used 'labour' in two different senses: the above and that of one of the factors of production ('hours of labour' or 'quantity of labour' has a meaning only in the latter sense). It is by confusing the two senses that they got mixed up and said that value is proportional to quantity of labour (in second sense) whereas they ought to have said that it is due...

"In that early and rude state of society which precedes both the accumulation of stock and the appropriation of land, the proportion between the quantities of labour necessary for acquiring different objects seems to be the only circumstance which can afford any rule for exchanging them for one another. If among a nation of hunters, for example, it usually costs twice the labour to kill a beaver which it does to kill a deer, one beaver should naturally exchange for or be worth two deer....

1.0 Introduction Piero Sraffa wrote down his 'first equations' in 1927, for an economy without a surplus. D3/12/5 starts with these equations for an economy with three produced commodities. I always thought that they did not make dimensional sense, but Garegnani (2005) argues otherwise. This post details Garegnani's argument, albeit with my own notation. There are arguments about how and why Sraffa started on his research project I do not address here. The question is how did he relate...

Marx can be read as both a continuation and a critique of classical economics. A not-too-radical reading might emphasize his claim to find distinctions in economic theory glossed over by classical economists such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. According to Marx, classical economists (as opposed to vulgar economists such as Frédéric Bastiat, Jean-Baptiste Say, and and Nassau William Senior) penetrated beneath surface phenomena to reveal the anatomy of capitalism. A more radical reading...